Role of water commission is discussed

The Gila/San Francisco Water Commission met Tuesday in Silver City. Most of the session was spent on discussion of projects and the role of the commission.

The GSFWC approved expenditures of $480 for snacks for the recent meeting of the Interim Legislative Committee on Water and Natural Resources held in Silver City. Also approved was an invoice for $25 for printing color fliers used to explain the mission of the commission to the legislators.

In discussion of projects to use the 14,000 acre-feet of water and $66 million up to $128 million allocated to the area by the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act, Tom Bates, commission vice chairman acting as chairman, said a project by the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission has been offered to the AWSA planning process Stakeholders Group to evaluate.

The AWSA Implementation and Technical committees have also put out a call for proposed projects to be evaluated at the group’s Dec. 11 meeting. Although a deadline for receiving proposals has been set for Nov. 30, GSFWC members made it clear that projects can continue to be proposed.

Bates said he, during the recent WNR meeting, made a point to legislators that the GSFWC represents the governments of the four counties of Grant, Luna, Catron and Hidalgo; every municipality in the four-county area, except Silver City; and the soil and water conservation districts.

Gerald Schultz, representing the Black Range Resource Conservation and Development district, asked if the proposed project on Duck Creek to slow down floodwaters was “dead.’

Bill Woodward, representing the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District, said he thinks it’s still a viable project.

Schultz asked if the GSFWC could present the project.

Anthony Gutierrez, representing Grant County, said the GSFWC is “still named in the act. We’ve had discussions about our role, whether it is to evaluate or recommend. The Stakeholders Group was set up to appease the current administration.’

He said he also questions putting a deadline on proposing projects, and that the Interstate Stream Commission should set any deadlines.

“I don’t think it is solely in the hands of the Implementation and Technical committees to evaluate projects,’ Gutierrez said. “The Grant County commissioners will support projects from the four-county area.’ Howard Hutchinson, representing the village of Reserve and the San Francisco Soil and Water Conservation District, said the state has two mechanisms by which it can propose projects to the U.S. secretary of the interior.

“Either the ISC can do it itself, or through the legislators to the ISC,’ he said. “The Legislature likes control over fiscal matters.’

A water user can be designated through consultation with the GSFWC, according to Hutchinson.

“According to the joint-powers agreement we all signed, thecommission can assign committees to made recommendations back to the group,’ he said.

Allen Rosenberg, representing the village of Columbus, said if the group is not paying for a project, it has the right to approve it without conflict.

Schultz said he thinks approvals should be done at one time, without spreading it over months or years.

During committee reports, several attendees at the Interim Legislative WNR meeting told what happened.

Hutchinson, who led a pre-meeting tour to several projects ongoing and completed in Catron County, said the tour “went well.’ Several areas, including comparisons between sections of stream and property treated and not treated, were viewed by the legislators.

“By and large, the legislators are supportive of this area gaining the extra water and are opposed to relinquishing it to Arizona,’ he said.

Bates said groups addressing the AWSA, such as the Implementation and Technical committees, the Gila Basin Irrigation Commission and the GSFWC, gave “very good reports.’

To a question from legislators during the tour about how withdrawals of water may impact the environment, Hutchinson said he expressed what he has said before: “that long before any environmental impact will be the impact to a senior water rights holder in New Mexico or Arizona.’

Mary Reece and Vivian Gonzales of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bates and Schultz reported on the recent Water Resource and Research Institute conference on water planning.

“(Speakers) brought out questions up front and brought up the uncertainty of water supply,’ Reece said.

Martinez said she learned a lot about New Mexico water issues.

Bates talked about two deep wells in Sandoval County to provide water to Rio Rancho and said that the wells are artesian, but even at depths of 3,700 and 4,800 feet, the water is saline.

Hutchinson said another problem is that the water is about 2 million years old and because it is not being recharged, is being mined, so there is no way to know when it will run out. It also contains arsenic. If the salts and arsenic are taken out, there will be hazardous waste, so the costs are prohibitive to use the water.

Schultz talked about the speakers, including ISC representatives who are working on the regional water plans, which are used in the state water plan. He also reported on the zebra mussel, which is of concern, because it is long-lived and reproduces rapidly. Hosing the mussels with hot water is the only method of extermination.

Bates said tours of the Isleta Pueblo’s salt cedar removal project and the Los Lunas Silvery Minnow Refugium were the highlights of the conference.

To a question about evaluation criteria of projects, Reece said it is a matter of sequencing, and “without the supply and demand questions being answered, it’s the cart before the horse. We haven’t defined the problem we’re trying to solve.’